Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2020 November 18

= November 18 =

Delete page
Avi Nardia has a page about him that is constantly being edited with false information about him, he would like the page regarding him taken down immediately.
 * Unfortunately, the wishes of the subject are not relevant as to whether or not an article about them exists, because Wikipedia summarizes what publicly available independent reliable sources state. See WP:OWN for more information.  If there is incorrect information in the article about him, and you have independent reliable sources to support those claims, please offer them on the article talk page.  331dot (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The other option, is if you wish to argue that Mr. Nardia does not meet the Wikipedia definition of a notable person, you can initiate an Articles for Deletion discussion. 331dot (talk) 01:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that this editor has already been blocked as WP:NOTHERE. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  01:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding a Watchlist filter
Hi.

I want to exclude Bot edits from my Watchlist. I open the Watchlist and click "Show" next to "Active filters" then "&thinsp;≡ Filter changes (use menu or search for filter name)" and I get list of available filters, with those in effect checked. I check "Human (not bot)" and click outside the filter list. Sure enough, "Human (not bot)" appears under "Active filters". But then if I close the Watchlist tab in my browser, reopen it, and click "Show" again, "Human (not bot)" has disappeared and bot edits are reported. How do I make this filter permanent?

Peter Brown (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , after selecting that filter, did you click on the bookmark icon that has the tooltip "Save current filter settings" directly to the right of all the active filters? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  01:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. The tooltip doesn't appear when one doesn't know enough to hover over it. It would be nice if it were labeled somehow.
 * Peter Brown (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Not sure where to post this
I have a suggestion that involves the devs of wikipedia themselves. I'm not sure where to post this where they can read and consider adding it to their site.

"I propose a new idea, and though I'm sure long time users of wikipedia will be divided, I think it is in line with the times.

What I suggest is simple: The option to comment on any wikipedia page. This will not only allow editors to gain feedback but also supplement any existing knowledge. There may be information within a given community that could only be had by this setup. Let's say x article has a cult following. There is a very elementary page about it but none of the users are willing to edit it for themselves. Their commentary would allow a contributor to update the page with new information. etc.

I think this could easily be implemented through disqus." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:743:4100:17A0:B879:3FB9:E430:8265 (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, because this is redundant with what Wikipedia already has. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Takes a strong man to deny... 04:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Each Wikipedia article has a talk page. The talk page is intended to allow editors (that's everybody) to make suggestions on how to improve the associated article. See WP:TALK. Any editor can then choose to update the article based on these suggestions.-Arch dude (talk) 04:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote2.svg Copied discussion from: WP:VPM
 * As others have said, talk pages already exist. Having something like Disqus would more likely cause conversation to shift towards a general forum about the subject rather than discussing the article itself. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  17:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As others have said, talk pages already exist. Having something like Disqus would more likely cause conversation to shift towards a general forum about the subject rather than discussing the article itself. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  17:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Problematic Prolific Uninformed and Contentious Editor
In my decade + of editing Wikipedia I am having my most frustrating experience ever. Just recently an editor who is knowledgeable about editing Wikipedia and who edits prolifically has decided to become interested in editing a few summary pages involving one of my main areas of expertise (ancient philosophy). This editor has never edited any detail page on the subject. I have over 1,000 such edits. I've also had a book published in the field. This editor has picked up two breezy introductory books to the subject and, due to their lack of understanding of the subject matter and the thinness of the sources they're relying on, are misinterpreting and misunderstanding what they're reading while citing these two sources over and over. Usually if one points out to another editor that they have made a factual error, they become more careful and circumspect in their editing, especially if more than one error has been identified. That's not the case here. We're well into double digits now of factual errors. The editor in question is repeatedly reverting my annotated corrections (annotated either on the edit itself or on the Talk page) based, of course, on their conviction they understand the material better than I do, based on consulting two thin introductory texts. While several experts in individual philosophies regularly edit those individual philosophies, few of these editors are involved on the summary pages which historically have had thin content, mostly just linking to key pages about the subject because these are complex topics that are difficult to summarize. So, I'm finding myself alone in trying to deal with the introduction of erroneous claims based on misunderstandings of the cited sources. The editor in question appears to have far more time available to devote to Wikipedia than I do, yet I keep getting sucked in because so much erroneous content is being added and my edits are constantly being reverted (all carefully within the rules - the editor is an experienced editor).

Any advice on how to persuade this editor they are in over their heads on this subject, and that they should refocus their prodigious editing efforts on topics they better understand?Teishin (talk) 03:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Could we have some examples.-- Moxy 🍁 03:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can look at the lengthy discussions going on at Talk:Hellenistic_philosophy and at the editing comments and reversion history at Hellenistic_philosophy. Similar and related but less overheated activities are occurring at Ancient Greek philosophy, Western philosophy, and Ancient Roman philosophy, all involving the same subject matters. Teishin (talk) 04:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This appears to be in regards to Hellenistic philosophy, which appears to have been the subject of a 3RR notice., if you and the other editor are unable to resolve this on the article's talk page, perhaps you can take the matter to either WP:DRN or WP:3O. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  04:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's correct that shortly after I posted here the other editor filed a 3RR complaint. (The complaining editor admits that the 3RR rule was not actually violated. The complaining editor has also filed two previous 3RR complaints against me which they have had to withdraw as unsupported). I was hoping to find some way of heading off such a thing. Teishin (talk) 05:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , please stop spreading this disinformation that the earlier complaints were withdrawn because they were "unsupported". I did so as a gesture of goodwill, which you subsequently squandered. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't really need to add much here since the comment above really reveals the other user's motivation, which is an absurd sense of territoriality. I wonder if there are any relevant guidelines for dealing with these individuals who expect their expertise to be respected on an anonymous online platform? Keepcalmandchill (talk) 05:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

, you were not mentioned here, nor were you invited here to participate in my request for help. Teishin (talk) 05:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a public page. He needs no invitation or mention to chime in here. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Takes a strong man to deny... 05:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's true, but it doesn't negate that what I said was also true. Teishin (talk) 05:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , if you are going to so blatantly misrepresent the facts, then you really should not be shocked at me coming here to correct them. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 05:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I suppose that no further evidence is now needed to demonstrate that the user in question is contentious and has lots of time on their hands.Teishin (talk) 05:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

TimedText
I want to change TimedText:Example so that it displays the same as the commons page at with the extra TimedText tab, the "Available closed captioning." box, and the CC) "Licensing" box. Is that possible? I can't figure out how to format the page to show the extra tab.

Cutting and pasting the source doesn't work, of course, but I do have an interesting side question: when I cut and paste the source from the commons page to the English Wikipedia page and hit preview, why does it mention Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets? Where did that text come from? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * (...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 13:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've no idea about the main question; perhaps try WP:VPT. For the side question, over at Commons, Commons:Template:cs is used to mark text in Czech, while over here, Template:cs is for citing a chapter of a Harry Potter novel. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text
More information needed. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  07:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Probably about Draft:Muzammil Y Ansari, which in its infobox uses two references by name without them being defined anywhere. Anyway, it's an autobiography with no evidence that its subject is notable, so further work on it will be a waste of effort. Maproom (talk) 09:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * (Pinging ) —[ Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 22:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Uploading company logos
Good morning,

I work for Global University Systems, a company which owns a number of educational institutions. Recently, one of the institution's we own changed their logo. I have attempted several times to upload the new logo but am having trouble getting it onto the Wikipedia page. I have received this message several times:

"Thanks for uploading File:University of Europe for Applied Sciences logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)"

I have asked a Wikipedia Editor who has advised: "Hi @MsAttempt:. Thank for your declaring your COI. I am not an expert in copyright images on Wikipedia, but after reading Wikipedia:Image use policy I have some ideas on what to do. You may also want to ask the Wikipedia:Help desk so someone with more experience with images can help. The message above states that the image is not being used in any articles. Since this is a non-free image, Wikipedia will delete the file if it is not being used. Please address the concerns below and post a reply to this request. I or another editor will take a look at the file and add it if necessary. The rationale section in the file is incomplete. The "Author" is blank, and the "Replaceability" and "Commercial" fields are marked with "n.a." These will need to be filled in with why this image fulfils that criteria. Once the above concerns are fixed, please message below so an editor can decide whether to add it to the article or not. I have also included a declaration of your COI at the top of this talk page. Z1720 (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)"

However, whenever I've uploaded the image, there has been no option to fill in an author, replaceability or commercial box. I have also gone onto the page where the image is (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:University_of_Europe_for_Applied_Sciences_logo.png) and tried to edit the details from here but am unable to add an author.

Please could you advise on how I can get this image on the institution's Wikipedia page? We own and created the logo.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated. MsAttempt (talk) 08:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * @MsAttempt I have answered the talk page question there and uploaded the image. I edited the "Summary" section of File:University of Europe for Applied Sciences logo.png (editing on a computer) by selecting "edit source", doesn't that work for you? TSventon (talk) 13:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Cat with dogs
In Category:Individual dogs, Kubrick the Dog is not in italics but should be, while Honolulu (dog) is in italics but shouldn't be. How do I fix that? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * On a category page, the software uses italic formatting to mark redirect pages (see Help:Category). It's not related to whether the article uses italic title. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Excellent answer. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Archiving own talk page
I'm finally wanting to archive my own talk page... I used the guide in Help:Archiving a talk page, but I'm just wanting to make absolute certain that my edit won't somehow mess a whole bunch of things up, lol. Would this be the correct stuff to add to the top of my talk page in order to start archiving it? And if I read everything correctly, I believe this should automatically archive it itself without me needing to manually move things to archives, and it should start going as soon as I submit the edit with those templates on my talk page? Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 09:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * , I decided the same thing recently, and did this . It worked, but I had to wait about 10 hours for a bot to come by and do the job, you can see it in the history. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Linked images in refs - ok or not?
If you have the navigation popups active, the article Taboo (permalink) has File:CC-BY icon.svg as preview image. I suspect that is due to the fact that this image is included in ref #3, which probably comes sooner in the wikitext than either the sociology series logo or the "cannibalism" drawing.

Regardless of the nav popups which is after all a side issue, is it appropriate to have such images in the references? I would think not, but I found nothing in WP:CS. Tigraan Click here to contact me 11:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you : I agree. I have BOLDly removed it. --ColinFine (talk) 13:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

New article idea and questions
I want to make a new article which is a list of United States Congresspeople who have cast the most lone votes in the history of Congress. I have two questions:

1. Is this encyclopedic? I would guess it is, but want to make sure before I invest time in this.

2. How would I go about citing it? As far as I know such a list has not been constructed before, but all the necessary data is available on sites such as govtrack.us and voteview.com. Linking to each lone vote is obviously not possible, because there are far too many. Would adding the sites mentioned above to the External Links section of the article suffice? Jonjbm (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello, . Unless you are able to take essentially all your data from a single reliable source which is a study of the matter (not just of voting patterns, but specifically of people who have cast lone votes) it will be original research, and not acceptable, I'm afraid. --ColinFine (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * By "single reliable source" do you mean it must all be on a single page? All the relevant data exists on a single reliable website (how every member voted on every vote in history), it's just not been collected onto one single page yet. Jonjbm (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think collecting one piece of information from each table in a document and putting them together would be synthesis, - one kind of original research - especially if you were wanting to talk about "the most". But in any case, that sounds like a primary source. If nobody has published research or commentary on at least the phenomenon of lone votes, and preferably the question of who has cast the most, then it is not a notable subject. --ColinFine (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Article title and focus
I would like to invite you to comment on the following issue:

Talk:Michael Fagan (intruder)

Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fellow The Crown fan here - I commented at the discussion. An RfC does this in a more scalable way. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  21:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

How does one convert a big list of articles on The English Wikipedia to their Wikidata IDs and vice versa?
? WikiJunkie (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how the Wikidata ID is used to identify articles, but you might have more luck asking here []. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  22:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)